Where charity is not present, the command of the authority is bitter. But where charity exists, the one who commands does so with sweetness and the charity makes the very work to be almost no work at all for the one who is commanded, even though in truth the subject is bound to some task.

Augustine, Commentary on the Letter of John to the Parthians, 9.1.

While this scenario doesn’t work itself out in every church, there is a sense where Christians are kept from progressing in their knowledge of the faith. Whether from fear, or the lack of desire to do the grunt work of theological learning and teaching, churches leave their members gurgling on the milk of theology, when they could all be dining on grade A steak.

William B. Evans makes a similar observation in his essay hosted at the Reformation21 site called, “Perspicuity, Exegetical Populism, and Tolerance: A Reply to G. I. Williamson.” Evans, who is Younts Professor of Bible and Religion at Erskine College, discusses the common misappropriation of the perspicuity of scripture among Reformed Christians. The oft-held idea is that perspicuity means that all of scripture is crystal clear to all Christians at all times. This means that the generally held notions of simple Christians, who have no training, should be the basic theological perspective of the church at large. Evans argues that this is at odds with the Westminster Confession’s teaching on perspicuity, and indeed scriptures own teaching on the subject (cf. WCF I.1; 2 Pet. 3:16). Perspicuity means that those issues to do with the broad story-line of scripture, that is caught up with the gospel and redemption, are what is clearly apprehended by all. Thus the brilliant mathematician, and the lowly minimum wage worker can all easily understand the gospel.

There are other teachings in scripture, however, that are harder to understand. And for that, the church needs her teachers to be educated in order to, within their God-given ability, teach clearly those things that are difficult. When it comes to such teaching, a lot more tolerance and understanding is needed, because issues in interpretation often lead theological experts in different directions. This can be seen in debates over eschatology; some are premillennial, others are amillennial. Nobody should make those a test of orthodoxy, because of the legitimate interpretations on either side of the issue. As eschatology is a good example, so is protology. In the history of the church, as I have pointed out in earlier posts, orthodox theologians have held varying views on days of creation or age of the earth. There are legitimate concerns that one’s theology could lead them in a dangerous direction, but because of the principle of the analogia fidei, those concerns aren’t always necessary. Evans cites eschatology again as an example: a person may become convinced of postmillennialism, but this does not necessarily mean that they will become a hyper-preterist because other texts of scripture keep them from it. So too with protology: a person may be old earth, but the analogy of faith keeps them from accepting evolution.

To be stuck at the lowest common denominator out of fear will grid-lock a church. Evans calls it “exegetical populism,” where the uneducated, “ordinary” Christian, who has no training in theology has the final say on matters that require sophistication and understanding. How would a group, church or otherwise, progress along these lines? If electricians were kept at a very basic understanding, will they ever get past the mere changing of light bulbs? As Evans asks: “When did naivete become a prerequisite for exegesis?” The implication is that everyone should remain theologically naive. If so, why do we have seminaries? Why do Christians get doctoral degrees–or any degree? Why read books? If exegetical populism were the standard fair in Christian history, there would be no Augustine, no Aquinas, no Calvin, no Owen, no Edwards, no Warfield, no Lloyd-Jones, no Carson. No matter how uncomfortable it may be in a given context, church leaders must get beyond “cookies on the bottom shelf” Christianity, they must move the church forward, so that it isn’t stuck at the level of the most simple-minded in the congregation.

Mark Jones freaks me out. No, not because he’s scary looking, however that may be the case, but because the guy is proving himself to be a prolific writer. Not a hack, mind you, his works are serious. Take for instance his doctoral dissertation on Thomas Goodwin from the University of Leiden (I love the look of terror in his eyes in the above picture of his thesis defense), or the work he co-edited on Reformed controversies with Michael Haykin published by the venerable Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. This is not to mention the beast of a book co-authored with Joel Beeke: A Puritan Theology. Generally when Dr. Jones writes something, I try and pay attention–even if he’s writing on paedobaptism or some other such Pelagianism…I mean Presbyterianism.

Recently Mark wrote a review of Tullian Tchividjian’s Jesus + Nothing = Everything at the Meet the Puritans blog that he contributes to. In it he draws a comparison between the book and seventeenth-century antinomianism–not that Mark would call Tullian an outright antinomian, but that there are some dangers in Tullian’s approach that would fit in that general category. One of the key problems with the book, according to Jones, is Tullian’s version of the law/gospel distinction. He says: “The section on the law and the gospel in the book evinces a problem with certain versions of the law-gospel antithesis, especially when this antithesis is read into the Christian life and not just simply justification…In essence, my concern has to do with the fact that a number of biblical passages are read in a manner where people automatically assume that the text is driving us to Christ for justification when in fact the text is saying nothing of the sort.” The whole review, though long, is well-worth digesting.

The substance of the review is picked up in an interview that Mark did with the guys at Reformed Forum. I like the interview primarily for the opening bit where one of Mark’s kids is acting out in the background, and Mark is doing his darndest to get him to pipe down–even Presbyterians have to deal with kids disobeying it seems, we Baptists aren’t alone! Aside from that, however, Mark helps with the historical problems of antinomianism, and again points to related problems in Tullian’s book. Sadly, Christians today are imbibing the tendencies evident in the book under review, and so Mark brings us back to a healthy model of gospel-grounded obedience. We are free, yes indeed; but we are free to obey Christ. Hopefully the Reformed and Puritan vision of justification and sanctification can be grasped and grappled with for the sake of the holiness of Christ’s people. I think ole Jonesy does a good job at bringing us back to that grounding.

Westminster Confession 28.1 speaks of baptism as the admission into the church, and while it goes on to say that it is regeneration, remission of sins, etc., WCF 28.6 says that the efficacy of baptism is not tied to the time when it is administered–therefore baptismal regeneration is avoided, notwithstanding the head-scratching of many Baptists like myself.

However, when you read major Lutheran statements on baptism, one goes from head scratching to head pounding…on a brick wall. The denomination whose founder was so strong on justification by faith alone leaves all that negated; or at the very least, faith alone is “preserved” through a series of back-spasm-provoking exegetical back-flips that leaves you heaving in a whirl of pain waiting for the demerol to kick in.

The pain of course comes from baptismal regeneration. In his “Sermon on Baptism” from 1534, Luther says that baptism brings the new believer “out of sin into righteousness, out of guilt and condemnation to innocence and grace, out of death into eternal life” (WA, 37:645.17-18). Later he says that the Christian is drawn by Christ “out of unrighteousness, condemnation, wickedness, death. He draws us through baptism into righteousness, life, and goodness. Where does baptism get that kind of power? It has God as the one who is at work in it” (“Sermon on Baptism,” 1538, WA, 46.175.37). He believed that the power of Christ’s suffering was brought into baptism, and that the waters of baptism “make atonement.” In effect, Luther believed that baptism washes away original sin.

Now, if you are a Baptist with a high sacramentology, and you argue for a deep relationship, though a distinction, between the “sign” and the “thing signified,” you may not be a baptismal regenerationist, because faith can still be a predicate. But when you are Luther, or a Lutheran, you believe this happens to a child, and faith cannot be a predicate. Well, unless you think that a newborn child can have faith that is, but who would believe that? Oh…Luther does: “Baptism is true. If it is possible that children do not have faith–and that they cannot demonstrate it–nevertheless, we should piously believe that God himself baptizes children and gives them faith and the Holy Spirit. That follows from the text” (“Sermons on Baptism,” 1539, WA, 47.655.1). I love that last line, it’s as if he says it to reassure us in light of our incredulity that it is in the text at all.

What is more incredulity-rendering is this: “But as our would-be wise, new spirits assert that faith alone saves, and that works and external things avail nothing, we answer: It is true, indeed, that nothing in us is of any avail but faith, as we shall hear still further. But these blind guides are unwilling to see this, namely, that faith must have something which it believes, that is, of which it takes hold, and upon which it stands and rests. Thus faith clings to the water, and believes that it is Baptism, in which there is pure salvation and life; not through the water (as we have sufficiently stated), but through the fact that it is embodied in the Word and institution of God, and the name of God inheres in it” (Larger Catechism XIII.4). So, faith alone saves–check. That faith must have an object–check. This faith must cling to…the waters of baptism. Sure, it is not mere water, but a water that is “embodied in the Word,” but please tell me how this does not heave works or merit into the mix. I love Luther, I want to read Luther as charitably as possible, I don’t think he was a heretic…but this just doesn’t make sense!

While Luther says that baptism is a work of God, and not of us, he cannot get away from the fact that baptism is a command that must be submitted to, and is therefore rightly understood as a work. As D. Patrick Ramsey says, “Since justification does not occur apart from the reception of the sacrament of baptism, the doctrine of justification is compromised because we are not justified by faith alone but by faith and baptism. One must believe and be baptized. Luther’s qualifications notwithstanding, his view inevitably turns baptism into a work” (“Sola Fide Compromised? Martin Luther and the Doctrine of Baptism” in Themelios 34.2). Luther also stumbles on the rock of Christian perseverance, because in his theology a baptized (note: regenerated) person can fall away from faith. This explains why later Lutherans do not espouse a theology of perseverance of the saints.

There is an object lesson in all of this: we must be wary of uncritical adulation of heroes. Luther was a great man, and his contribution to the defense of the gospel should be respected. But Luther, as an early Reformer, had significant problems. Sadly, his problems have flowed into later Lutheranism that has picked up the inconsistencies that he sought (though failed) to avoid, and run with them. Luther was the man for the hour in the Magisterial Reformation, he was a good Reformer, but he was not an exegete. There is a reason why commentaries on Galatians, or Romans today quote Luther sparingly, but Calvin figures large–the latter was skilled with the text of Scripture, the former was not. Luther should be read, but he must be read with a critical eye, and the areas where he failed must be admitted, and the theology must be rejected.

I am, of course, much more comfortable with these words about baptism: “Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance,” and “Immersion, or dipping of the person in water, is necessary to the due administration of this ordinance” (Second London Confession of Faith, 29.1 and 4). Ah, home sweet home.

The Lord’s Supper As A Means of Grace 1

The Lord’s Supper As A Means of Grace 2

The Lord’s Supper As A Means of Grace 3

The Lord’s Supper As A Means of Grace 4

You can also watch an interview with Barcellos on the subject:

Q&A with Dr. Barcellos and John Divito | ARBCA GA from MCTS on Vimeo.

And this would be another – “to the sunny slopes of long ago”:

Carl Trueman often finds himself in the thick of it when it comes to debates in evangelicalism, which of course should come natural to him as a middle-aged, white, Reformed guy. But unfortunately he’s not living up to the standards of MAWR, as displayed at the end of a recent interview he conducted on a very serious topic. Now, before I get into the true nitty-gritty of Trueman’s MAWR failure, it should be said that he made his faux pas fully aware of the ecclesial ramifications of his actions. I believe that he’s broken his confessional standard, and for this I am truly sorry. Whereas I was once a big fan of his writings, I fear that I must cease-and-desist from reading any and all that comes from his pen–I speak as an aspiring MAWR, a catechumen if you will, as I have yet to hit my fourth decade.

So, in what way did “Dr.” Trueman break his confessional vows? In the Solemn League and Covenant, a statement specifically adopted by an as-yet published revision of the Westminster Confession, it says plainly: “I solemnly covenant to league myself with those who rightly uphold the following: to read, watch, and admire Larry McMurtry’s Lonesome Dove novel, and film, and cry when Gus dies; to defend the honour of John Wayne, even when he acted in a real stinker like The Conqueror.” Sadly, Trueman outed himself  as a “hater” (though thankfully he maintained his love for The Searchers), and didn’t list Lonesome Dove in his top-four westerns–while his top four was pretty impressive, I wouldn’t think that even ole Henry would admit to outdoing Bobby Duvall or Tommy Lee Jones. Sure John Wayne’s real name was Marion, but should that effect our exegesis of so many brilliant texts? Why wouldn’t our British friend at least have some sympathies for a man who could stand alongside Maureen O’Hara in The Quiet Man? It makes me want to spit my tobacky on my poor dog’s head.

And while we’re on the subject of heresy—and modalism ain’t got nothin’ on this—why no Magnificent Seven? Why no Jeremiah Johnson? Not even Rio Bravo? Oh, of course, he doesn’t like John Wayne! Not even for the crooning of Ricky Nelson?!

Finally, what amazes me even more than this—what can you expect from a Presbyterian?—is that there seemed to be a hushed acquiescence on the part of his interviewer, Clint Humfrey—shouldn’t he have lived up to his namesake and blasted the Tuco in his midst?—and the audience. Humfrey has preaching boots for pete’s sake! And here Trueman sits in front of a crowd in Calgary, Alberta, where movies like Open Range were filmed, where business execs wear cowboy hats to lunch, and he gets away with murder. Where is the Steve McQueen or Yul Brenner in their midst who would bury the slain? Is there no justice?

So, if Dr. Trueman wants a show-down on the great evangelical wasteland, and his posse chickens out and runs for the hills, who will he turn to for help? This gunslinger? In the words of a movie great, “That’ll be the day.”

I’ve been working through a series of posts on the history of interpretation regarding the days of creation. Initially I highlighted some old earth quotes by Charles Spurgeon and asked how it could be possible that a confessionally Reformed theologian like him, who stood in the  Puritan line of interpretation, could believe that the earth was old or that animals died before Adam’s fall. I traced the interpretation of the days in church history, using Robert Letham and William Barker’s essays to guide me, showing that Reformed theology has not held a consensus on these matters. Therefore Spurgeon can’t stand outside of the norm, because there is no norm. I followed that with a post about modern Reformed theologians, using Max Rogland, looking primarily at the Dutch Reformed tradition of Kuyper, Bavinck, etc., with quick notes on Old Princeton and the founders of Westminster Seminary, to show that even these theologians did not agree on these peripheral matters surrounding the doctrine of creation (I could have included Martyn Lloyd-Jones in this list as well). As an interlude, I posted a collection of quotes from noteworthy Reformed and evangelical theologians, showing that even up to today, nobody is agreed as to what the creation days mean, whether the earth is young or old; the only agreement seems to be is that the matter is tertiary, and does not impinge on the gospel.

In the post about the Dutch tradition, I mentioned that I would do one more post on where young earth creationism (YEC) comes from historically. While theologians in church history have held to a 6/24 reading of Genesis 1 (take Basil of Caesarea for instance), there is a sense that the recent YEC phenomenon is marked by key areas of difference with these earlier theologians–by YEC, I am thinking of those who strongly support Answers In Genesis or some other such group, not a disparate theologian who is young earth and 6/24 per se. One is YEC’s historical provenance, another is it’s different hermeneutic. While I’ll comment on the latter briefly, this post is concerned with history.

Reformed historian R. Scott Clark, whom I’ve quoted a number of times in this series, makes the following statement about YEC’s origins: “The irony of using the 6/24 interpretation as a boundary marker of orthodoxy is that it threatens to let the wrong people in and keep the right people out. Ronald L. Numbers has shown that one of the primary sources of the creationist movement is not orthodox Reformed theology but the Seventh Day Adventist movement, the distinguishing beliefs of which have little in common with the Reformed confession” (Clark, Recovering the Reformed Confession, 49). When I first read this, I was quite taken aback. I had no clue that there was a connection between YEC and the Adventists (note: Adventists are typically understood to be a cult, though there are many with a more evangelical persuasion, they none-the-less are problematic). Clark references Ronald L. Numbers’ book The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism (New York: Alfred Knopf, 1992), which was recently reprinted with additions by Harvard. Ronald Numbers used to be an Adventist, and is something of an Adventist historian, and is even a past president of the American Society for Church History, and the History of Science Society. Vocationally he is an historian of science at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

I have the book on order at Crux (it just came in), so I can’t vouch for it yet, but I have read some positive reviews, and I managed to track down his essay that the book is based on: “The Creationists” in Zygon 22.2 (June 1987): 133-164 (this requires subscription, but I have the PDF if anyone wants it). It is well-researched, sympathetic to its subject, and convincing. Numbers shows how early YEC’s like Henry Morris and John Whitcomb (Numbers did interviews with the latter for the book), authors of The Genesis Flood, were influenced by Adventists like George Price, who was deeply shaped by the writings of Adventist founder Ellen White. According to White, she had been given direct divine revelation about Noah’s flood. Price, not a trained geologist, then began to write books on “flood geology” that began gaining influence in Adventist circles. While his work was largely panned by the scientific community, the early fundamentalists, looking for arguments against Darwinism, began to use Price more frequently. Price had direct influence on the later work of Henry Morris, who took up the cause for YEC in the 1960s. Early reviews of The Genesis Flood claimed that it was basically an update of Price’s work. The influence of The Genesis Flood cannot be overstated; it was the first book using this line of argument that had the appearance of scholarship, with footnotes, and detailed discussion of complex geology. It spawned groups like the Creation Research Society that included Baptists, Lutherans, and Adventists.

While of course one does not want to fall into the “guilt by association” fallacy, but when all of this is considered, a couple of conclusions can be drawn. If the history of theology is any indication, YEC was not a major view among leading conservative and Reformed theologians. YEC came to ascendancy with the rise of the Seventh Day Adventist movement, and its influence on fundamentalism. As Clark further comments, that YEC has become a boundary marker in Reformed circles, though it was birthed by the Adventists, coupled with fundamentalism, all the while the range of the Reformed tradition had little to do with either, is telling. Mainstream evangelical eschatology is influenced by the popular dispensational theology of Left Behind, likewise it has also been influenced by the popular “flood geology” of similar movements that Clark calls “an anticonfessional fundamentalism” (p. 50)–though it should be noted that some early fundamentalists, like C. I. Scofield were old earth, and I’ve heard (though not confirmed) that William Jennins Bryan of the Scopes Trial was also old earth. Therefore, Reformed Christians need to be aware of their exegetical and confessional history, and be careful not to allow the hermeneutical problems of outside traditions impede upon their own. When one reads YEC interpretations of Genesis, what is found is not deep biblical exegesis, or an awareness of theology and history, but rather strong statements coupled with the proof-texting of irrelevant biblical texts. This is not a good method of exegesis, and were it applied to other texts of scripture, on other doctrinal issues (say Calvinism), we would be horrified by the conclusions.

I conclude with this observation by Clark: “The great tragedy of the modern creation controversy is that, while we in the Reformed sideline have been arguing about the length of creation days, many of our congregants, even those in denominations that hold a 6/24-creation view, have stopped believing in “creation” or “nature” altogether. While congregants will confess a 6/24 creation, many of them no longer think of the world as something created by God, with inherent limits on our choices. In Reformed terms, many of us no longer think and live as if we are creatures, as if there are such things as nature and providence” (p. 51).

***UPDATE***

I found an interview with Ronald Numbers about Ellen G. White done in 2009:

A brief caveat: these are only Trevin’s notes, not the full-blown, word-for-word interview, so some of my thoughts are subject to change in light of the clearer picture that will come once the video is released. There are other interviews as well that may also give clarity; my thoughts are based primarily on this first one.

1) There is a conciliatory air between those involved. It seems that the interviewers have already decided on Jakes’ orthodoxy before interviewing him. Driscoll promised us, when the controversy first broke, that he would be hard on Jakes on the Trinity–but Driscoll was much harder on Justin Brierly over complimentarianism than he is on Jakes. While he thankfully asked a number of creed-oriented questions, he didn’t push Jakes on his unclear statements.

2) Jakes hasn’t clarified the issues in the way The Elephant Room guys seem to think he has. He begins by explaining his early experience with the Oneness Pentecostals, a modalist group who denies the Trinity. We know that anti-Trinitarianism is the view of his early experience; one only has to read his writings to come to that conclusion. Yet of this group he says: “They believe in Jesus Christ, he died and raised again. But how they explain the Godhead is how Trinitarians describe the gospel.” So a group that is demonstrably anti-Trinitarian believes the gospel the way Trinitarians do. Two thoughts: Do they believe the Trinity the way Trinitarians do? And more importantly, if he says that this early group was Trinitarian, which they are not, does this mean that when he claims Trinitarianism for himself, he is using the term in the same way? Because if he’s as Trinitarian as the early group is, then he’s not saying much that we haven’t heard before. He also says that he was “infiltrated” by Baptist and Methodist teaching. The question is, when did this infiltration take place? He’s been espousing modalism until very recently (I would argue he still does).

3) There is a tone of non-judgmentalism when it comes to how the evangelical world is to observe The Elephant Room and Jakes, yet there are jabs taken by by a number of them against those who disagree on this issue. Jakes talks of people throwing rocks; MacDonald calls criticisms of Jakes’ anti-Trinitarianism “rhetoric.” Genuine theological concerns are not the same as mere stone-throwing, or rhetoric.

4) Jakes attempts to use obfuscating language that is useful for sound-bytes, like “One God–Three Persons,” but continues to affirm the language of manifestation in the Godhead, even claiming it to be Pauline. He says he doesn’t like the word “person.” He mustn’t see Oneness Pentecostalism as a problem or a heresy, because he still associates with it. If he were convinced of it being heretical, why would he still associate with them? It would be like getting Athanasius associating with the Arians; he was contra mundum for a reason. Robert Murray M’Cheyne said that the character of a man is determined by what he is like on his knees; is Jakes a modalist or Trinitarian in his prayer life? When he prays to Jesus, is he also praying to the Father because they are the same person?

5) Why hasn’t anyone addressed Jakes’ prosperity gospel? His anti-Trinitarianism is by far the worst, but health-and-wealth is quite bad too.

After reading through Trevin’s post I haven’t found anything that would change my opinion about Jakes’ orthodoxy, nor do I find anything relieving about James MacDonald and his ability to lead, nor Mark Driscoll, whom I expected much more from. If Driscoll can treat a nice guy like Justin Brierly contemptuously, but welcome an anti-Trinitarian like T. D. Jakes, then he is in pretty rough shape too. And, on that score, TGC counsel member Crawford Lorrits’ comments at the end make me wonder about him too!

The last number of posts have dealt with the question of Charles Spurgeon’s old-earth theology, and how he doesn’t break with the Reformed mainstream by holding it, because there was no consensus among the Reformed on the issue. In fact, there has been no consensus on the issue of creation days at all in church history. I have one more post about this, that will account for the rise of young earth creationism in evangelical circles, but before I post it, I wanted to share a number of quotes by noteworthy Reformed and conservative evangelical theologians on this issue. You’ll notice that I include voices from past and present, and across disciplines–so you’ve got historians, biblical theologians (Old and New Testament), and systematicians. You also see the various views represented, like the framework, day age, day of unspecified duration, and analogical days view. It’s not exhaustive, there are a number of theologians who have written major works on this, that I’ve left out. I title this as a consensus, and do so facetiously for obvious reasons. Be warned, this post is very long!

So, here’s the list (I particularly recommend those by James Montgomery Boice, Ernest Kevan, Graeme Goldsworthy, Bob Godfrey, and R. C. Sproul):

T. Desmond Alexander (Union Theological Seminary, Belfast), from his “Introduction to Genesis” in the ESV Study Bible (pp. 43-44): ”Faithful interpreters have offered arguments for taking the creation week of Genesis 1 as a regular week with ordinary days (the “calendar day” reading); or as a sequence of geological ages (the “day-age” reading); or as God’s “workdays,” analogous to a human workweek (the “analogical days” view); or as a literary device to portray the creation week as if it were a workweek, but without concern for temporal sequence (the “literary framework” view). Some have suggested that Genesis 1:2, “the earth was without form and void,” describes a condition that resulted from Satan’s primeval rebellion, which preceded the creation week (the “gap theory”). There have been other readings as well, but these five are the most common. None of these views requires denying that Genesis 1 is historical, so long as the discussion in the section on Genesis and History is kept in mind. Each of these readings can be squared with other biblical passages that reflect on creation.”

Oswald T. Allis (former founding OT professor of Westminster Seminary) from his God Spake By Moses (pp. 159): “We may well hesitate to assert that the days of Genesis i must be taken literally as days of twenty-four hours. But we should not hesitate to assert that infinite time and endless process are no adequate substitute for or explanation of that fiat creation by an omnipotent God of which this sublime chapter speaks so clearly and emphatically. It is equally true that “one day is with the Lord as a thousand years” and that “a thousand years are as one day.”

Edgar Andrews, is Emeritus Professor of Materials at the University of London, apologist who debated Richard Dawkins, and author of Who Made God? published by Evangelical Press. This quote comes from an interview he did with Tim Challies after the book came out: “I really don’t like terms such as “young earth”, “old earth” and “Intelligent Design” (with ID in capitals!) because when you look more closely they are actually very ill-defined. I therefore don’t apply any of these labels to myself. My own non-negotiable position is that (1) the early chapters of Genesis are historical not mythological; they describe things that actually happened; and (2) the universe and all that it contains was created ex nihilo by God, who continues to sustain it. Beyond that I have my own theories (for example, that ‘Big Bang’ cosmology is consistent with a historical view of Genesis One) but respect the views of those who differ from me.”

Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), important medieval theologian, indicates a “framework” pattern in his Summa Theologiae: “The first part, then, is distinguished on the first day, and adorned on the fourth, the middle part distinguished on the middle day, and adorned on the fifth, and the third part distinguished on the third day, and adorned on the sixth. (Q 74, Ar. 1).”

Gleason Archer, professor of Old Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, from his book Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (p. 59-60): “It would seem to border on sheer irrationality to insist that all of Adam’s experiences in Genesis 2:15-22 could have been crowded into the last hour or two of a literal twenty-four-hour day.”

Bill T. Arnold, Old Testament professor at Asbury and author of numerous books including Encountering the Book of Genesis. This quote comes from p. 22: “Yet as important as creation is theologically, the precise details of the process of creation seem unimportant in the opening chapters of Genesis.” Arnold also says on page 23: “We should not be too concerned with the issue of how long it took God to create the universe. Nor should this debate be used as a litmus test to determine who is really serious about Christ. This is not a faith issue. If it were important to know how long it took God to create the world, the Bible would have made it clear. The important lesson from Genesis 1 is that he did in fact created it, and that he made it orderly and good in every respect.”

Herman Bavinck, Dutch Reformed theologian and author of the influential four-volume Reformed Dogmatics, he taught theology at the Free University of Amsterdam. He held what is now called the “analogical day view.” This comes from Our Reasonable Faith (p. 172-173): “Scripture itself contains data which oblige us to think of these days of Genesis as different from our ordinary units as determined by the revolutions of the earth. In the first place we cannot be sure whether what is told us in Genesis 1:1-2 precedes the first day or is included within that day. In favor of the first supposition is the fact that according to verse 5 the first day begins with the creation of light and that after the evening and the night it ends on the following morning. But even though one reckons the events of Genesis 1:1-2 with the first day, what one gets from that assumption is a very unusual day which for a while consisted in darkness. And the duration of that darkness which preceded the creation of light is nowhere indicated. In the second place, the first three days (Gen. 1:3-13) must have been very unlike ours. For our twenty-four hour days are effected by the revolutions of the earth on its axis, and by the correspondingly different relationship to the sun which accompanies the revolutions. But those first three days could not have been constituted in that way. It is true that the distinction between them was marked by the appearance and disappearance of light. But the book of genesis itself tells us that the sun and moon and stars were not formed until the fourth day.”

Here’s another one from Bavinck’s Reformed Dogmatics (Vol. 2, p. 495-496): “It is nevertheless remarkable that not a single confession made a fixed pronouncement about the six-day continuum, and that in theology as well a variety of interpretations were allowed to exist side by side.  Augustine already urged believers not too quickly to consider a theory to be in conflict with Scripture, to enter into discussion on these difficult subjects only after serious study, and not to make themselves ridiculous by their ignorance in the eyes of unbelieving science.  This warning has not always been faithfully taken to heart by theologians.”

John Blanchard, author of the popular Ultimate Questions evangelism booklet says in his Does God Believe in Atheists? (p. 462): “As we might expect, the Bible is more concerned with questions of meaning than mechanism. For example, it does not give us a detailed explanation of how creation took place. Instead, it merely says of the universe and everything in it, ‘The Lord…commanded and they were created.’ Some theists see this as contradicting the Big Bang theory as presently understood, but others see no conflict here between science and Scripture. In Thinking Clearly about God and Science, David Wilkinson, a Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society, see Big Bang theory as ‘currently the best model we have which describes how God did it,’ and goes on to say, “Genesis 1 complements that description with the fundamental truth that the purpose, the source of order and faithfulness of the Universe can only be found in this Creator God.’ The word I have emphasized is important!”

Later Blanchard says (p. 462), “The massive gap between the positions of those who say that the earth is millions of years old and those who claim that a straightforward reading of Scripture teaches an earth only about ten thousand years old at most is impossible to dissolve, and Ian Taylor notes that each of the popular attempts to reconcile Genesis with science on this issue ‘mixes more or less science with more or less Scripture and produces a result more or less absurd.’ The issue is well discussed elsewhere; here, we need only recognize that the Bible’s specific focus is not on a precise chronology but on the comprehensive fact that ‘God…made heaven and earth and sea and everything in them.’ God is the Author of everything (which means, incidentally, that he is the true origin of species).”

James Montgomery Boice, minister of Tenth Presbyterian Church, founder of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, and past president of the International Counsel on Biblical Inerrancy, wrote in Foundations of the Christian Faith (p. 163): “Is the sequence of the Genesis days to be compared with the sequence of the so-called geological periods? Do the fossils substantiate this narrative? How long are the ‘days’–twenty-four-hour periods or indefinite ages? And, perhaps most important, does the Genesis account leave room for evolutionary development (guided by God) or does it require divine intervention and instantaneous creation in each case? The chapter does not answer our questions. I noted a moment ago that the Genesis account is theological rather than a scientific statement, and we need to keep that in mind here. It is true that it provides us with grounds for constructive speculation, and at some points it is even rather explicit. But it is not written primarily to answer such questions; we must remember that.”

John Calvin, famous Reformed theologian of the sixteenth century. This is from his Commentary on the Book of the Psalms (p. 5:184): “The Holy Spirit had no intention to teach astronomy, and, in proposing instruction meant to be common to the simplest and most uneducated persons, he made use by Moses and other prophets of popular language, that none might shelter himself under the pretext of obscurity.”

R. Scott Clark, is an historical theologian with a PhD from Oxford, who teaches at Westminster California and is an expert in Reformation and post-Reformation theology. He is also a minister in the URC. In his book Recovering the Reformed Confession (p. 48) Clark argues that 6/24 creation should not be a test-case for Reformed orthodoxy. He says this: “[T]he debate over the days of creation has had little to do with the Reformed confession. Proponents of 6/24 creation as a mark of Reformed orthodoxy have been unable to explain the theological reason for making the 6/24 interpretation a standard for orthodoxy.”

Later Clark says (p. 49), “From the middle of the nineteenth century through the middle of the twentieth century, virtually none of the leading Reformed theologians held or taught that Scripture teaches that God created the world in six twenty-four-hour periods.”

One more from Clark (p. 49): “Most importantly, one’s view of the length of the creation days is an improper boundary marker, because it does not arise from the interests of the Reformed confession itself but has been imported from fundamentalism. The elevation of an extraconfessional, exegetical disagreement to the level of a boundary marker, despite the fact that there is nothing obviously at stake in Reformed theology as confessed by our churches, is a strong indicator of the presence of QIRC [Quest for Illegitimate Religious Certainty] (an anticonfessional fundamentalism) in our midst.”

Millard Erickson, a notable evangelical scholar and professor of theology at Truett Seminary, from his Christian Theology (p. 382): “While the age-day theory seems the most plausible conclusion at present, we cannot be dogmatic. The age of the universe is a topic which demands continued study and thought.”

Norman Geisler, a famous Christian apologist and author of a wide range of books, from his When Skeptics Ask (p. 229): “Of course, there are many Creationists who argue for an old earth. Biblically, this position that the word for day is used for more than twenty-four hours even in Genesis 2:4, the events of the sixth day surely took more than twenty-four hours, and Hebrews 4:4?5 implies that God is still in His seventh-day rest. If the seventh day can be long, then the others could too. Scientifically, this view does not require any novel theories to explain the evidence. One of the biggest problems for the young earth view is in astronomy. We can see light from stars that took 15 billion years to get here. To say that God created them with the appearance of age does not satisfy the question of how their light reached us. We have watched star explosions that happened billions of years ago, but if the universe is not billions of years old, then we are seeing light from stars that never existed?because they would have died before Creation. Why would God deceive us with the evidence? The old earth view seems to fit the evidence better and causes no problem with the Bible.“

W. Robert Godfrey, an historical theologian in the Reformed tradition and president of Westminster Seminary in California, this is from his book God’s Pattern for Creation (69-70): “How does Genesis use the word day in its early verses? That question is important since the days of creation are the most apparent part of the structure Moses gave to the introduction of Genesis. It is also important since many people today argue that it is obvious that the word day must mean a twenty-four-hour day in Genesis 1. We need to see that the word day is used in as many as seven different ways in the short space of Genesis 1:1-2:4. First, ‘day’ in Genesis 1:5 means daylight – in our experience twelve hours, not twenty-four hours. Second, later in that same verse ‘day’ means the whole day of evening and morning, apparently twenty-four hours long. Third, the first three days of Genesis 1 – at least according to the traditional interpretation – are distinct as presolar days. We cannot know with certainly how long such days would be. Fourth, the solar days after the creation of the sun are another use of the word day. Fifth, the seventh day of Genesis 2:1-3 is at least described differently from the other days in that evening and morning are not mentioned relation to is. Sixth, in Hebrew the numerals of the sixth and seventh days are preceded by the definite article, whereas there are no definite articles preceding the numerals for the other days….Finally, and significantly, Genesis 2:4…the word day stands for the whole period of the creative activity of God. This use of the word ‘day’ is particularly significant because it shows that in summarizing the work of creation at the beginning of the first of the generations in Genesis, Moses says the creation took place in a day.“

Graeme Goldsworthy, is lecturer in Old Testament at Moore Theological College in Sydney, Aus., is a key figure in the resurgence of biblical theology, and is likened to a modern-day Geerhardus Vos. His book According to Plan is an influential introduction to biblical theology, in it he says (p. 92): “Why does Genesis 1 describe creation having taken place in six days? Different answers have been given to that question, ranging from ‘because that’s the way it literally happened,’ to ‘because such an artificial arrangement is an aid to memorizing details.’ It is true that the Hebrew word for day (yom) is used throughout the Old Testament for the normal day as we know it. But it is also true that it is used for longer periods of time.”

Another one from Goldsworthy (p. 92): “When we face such ambiguities, that is, when more than one possible way exists of understanding something in the Bible, the gospel must instruct us since it is God’s final and fullest word to man. It is clear from the gospel that God created all things for a purpose, and that he exercises his rule over creation by his word. It is not at all clear from the gospel that the creation too place in six twenty-four hour periods. Nor is it clear from the gospel that it did not happen in that way. The question is not whether the Bible tells the truth, but how it tells it.”

Robert Grossteste (c. 1168-1253), medieval bishop, argued for a literary framework in his Hexaemeron: “It is fitting to the beauty of a disposition that when things are disposed according to an odd number, the first should match the last, the second the penultimate, and the third the antepenultimate, and so on: until one reaches the one in the middle, which has a special privilege relative to the things that are disposed on either side.”

Wayne Grudem, author of the influential Systematic Theology, wrote in it (p. 294): “”The finite nature of man and the incredibly large number of animals created by God would by itself seem to require that a much longer period of time than part of one day would be needed to include so many events…If the sixth day is shown by contextual considerations to be considerably longer than an ordinary twenty-four-hour day, then does not the context itself favor the sense of day as simply a ‘period of time’ of unspecified length?”

Grudem also says regarding Young Earth and Old Earth Creationism (p. 308): “Both views are possible, but neither one is certain. And we must say very clearly that the age of the earth is a matter that is not directly taught in Scripture, but is something we can think about only by drawing more or less probably inferences from Scripture.”

David Helm, a council member of The Gospel Coalition, president of The Charles Simeon Trust, PCA minister, noted speaker and author. This comes from the book he co-wrote with Jo Dennis called The Genesis Factor: “Many today in conservative Christian circles are convinced that the days of Genesis must be literal twenty-four-hour days. This approach to Scripture is, one could argue, a ‘tradition’ in its own right–we could call it ‘biblical literalism.’ Adherents of this school of interpretation see the ‘days’ of Genesis 1 as seven literal twenty-four-hour days, and they often…calculate the age of the earth to be no less than six thousand years and no more than ten thousand years. For the biblical literalist, this is the plain meaning of the text. Adherents to this view find no reason to read it in any way other than literally. For them the conclusions of science regarding the age of the earth must be erroneous, since those conclusions contradict the literal interpretation of the text. This view is what most of the media and even the general public think of today when using the term ‘creationism’…However, creationism is the truest biblical sense does not require that we bind the verses of Genesis 1 in so literal a straitjacket. In actual fact, a creationist is anyone who associates God or a Supreme Being with the origin of the universe. It is possible to hold the view that God created the universe, but without the added baggage of the tenets of creationism.” On page 122 they argue for the Framework understanding of the creation days (see footnote 3).

Charles Hodge, professor of theology at Princeton, a noted Reformed stalwart. In the first volume of his Systematic Theology (p. 570): “The word day, as used throughout the chapter [Genesis 1] is understood of geological periods of indefinite duration…the word day is used in Scripture in many different senses…and in this account of the creation it is used for the period of light in antithesis to night; for the separate periods in the progress of creation; and then, ch. ii. 4, for the whole period.”

Michael Horton, a well-known Reformed theologian, host of the White Horse Inn radio program, author of important books on Reformed theology, he also teaches systematic theology at Westminster Seminary in California. This comes from his The Christian Faith, a recent systematic theology (p. 381): “It will not surprise those who have read thus far that I take the says of creation to be analogical. That is, they are not literal twenty-four hour periods, but God’s accomodation to the ordinary pattern of six days labor and a seventh day of rest, which he created for humankind.”

R. Kent Hughes, pastor and respected preacher at College Church, Wheaton, author of numerous books. This quote is from his preaching commentary on Genesis (Vol. 1, p. 23): “Bryan Chapell, president of Covenant Seminary, has noted that those who believe that the Bible teaches that creation took place in six twenty-four-hour solar days include such greats as John Calvin (though Warfield says he was open to other views), William Henry Thornwell, and Louis Berkhof. Others of equal stature have believed that the six days of Genesis did not limit God’s creating actions to the 144 hours of six days. These include the ancients Augustine and Aquinas, the Puritan William Ames, the great nineteenth-century defenders of orthodoxy Charles Hodge, A. A. Hodge, and B. B. Warfield, and prominent twentieth-century defenders of the faith such as J. Gresham Machen, J. Oliver Buswell, Donald Grey Barnhouse, and Francis Schaeffer.”

Walter Kaiser, a distinguished Old Testament professor from Gordon Conwell and author of widely used texts on the OT, from his Hard Sayings of the Bible (p. 104): “I would opt for the day-age theory, given all that must take place on the sixth “day” according to the Genesis record. Incidentally, this day-age view has been the majority view of the church since the fourth century, mainly through the influence of Saint Augustine.“ Kaiser also said in his Towards an Old Testament Theology (pp. 74-75): “he notes, contrary to claims by young earth creationists, that a simple reading of the text would lead the reader to the conclusion that the author is using the term ‘day’ with quite a bit of elasticity.”

Ernest F. Kevan (1903-1965), was a noted British Reformed Baptist, founding principal of London Bible College, and close associate of Martyn Lloyd-Jones. He wrote influential works on the Moral Law and puritanism. In his article on “Genesis” in The New Bible Commentary (p. 77), he said: “It is contended by some that this is an ordinary day of twenty-four hours. In support of this it is pointed out that the periods of evening and morning are specifically mentioned, but there are serious difficulties in the way of accepting this interpretation.”

J. Gresham Machen, famous Princeton theologian, defender of the faith, founder of the OPC and Westminster, and Reformed theologian. This quote is from his The Christian View of Man recently reprinted by Banner of Truth (p. 131): “It is certainly not necessary to think that the six days spoken of in that first chapter of the Bible are intended to be six days of twenty four hours each. We may think of them rather as very long periods of time.”

H. M. Ohmann, a minister in the Canadian Reformed and (Liberated) Reformed Churches, a conservative scholar, and Old Testament professor. On comparing a non-literal reading of the Genesis days to a non-literal reading of the resurrection says: “Is it feasible to have the length of the days of creation play the role the resurrection of Christ has in the doctrine of the Church, and in the biblical evelation? The truth and reality of the resurrection of our Saviour in the history of revelation is the main point of interest throughout the Bible (esp. the New Testament). I simply remind the reader of 1 Corinthians 15 and many other passages in the letters of Paul. ‘Do you ever notice an equal importance being attached to the length of the days of creation in the rest of the Bible? Did you ever give that a thought?’” From Lux Mundi (Dec. 2000).

John Piper, well known Reformed author and pastor, from the Desiring God website: “Now, when it comes to the more controversial issues of how to construe Genesis 1-2 about how God did it and how long it took him to do it, there I’m totally sympathetic with a pastor who is going to lay his view down, having studied it, and is going to say to his people, “Here is my understanding of those chapters. These six days can’t be anything other than six literal days, and so that’s how long God took to do it. And this universe is about 10 or 15,000 years old. Though it looks old, that’s the way God made it. He made it to look old,” or something like that. Or he might take another view that these days are ages. Or he might take Sailhamer’s view, which is where I feel at home. His view is that what’s going on here is that all of creation happened to prepare the land for man. In verse 1, “In the beginning he made the heavens and the earth,” he makes everything. And then you go day by day and he’s preparing the land. He’s not bringing new things into existence; he’s preparing the land and causing things to grow and separating out water and earth. And then, when it’s all set and prepared, he creates and puts man there. So that has the advantage of saying that the earth is billions of years old if it wants to be—whatever science says it is, it is—but man is young, and he was good and he sinned.”

A. W. Pink, well-known Reformed bible expositor and author, this comes from his book Gleanings in Genesis (p. 13): “Nothing is said which enables us to fix the date of their creation; nothing is revealed concerning their appearance or inhabitants; nothing is told us about the modus operandi of their Divine Architect. We do not know whether the primitive heaven and earth were created a few thousands, or many millions of years ago. We are not informed as to whether they were called into existence in a moment of time, or whether the process of their formation covered an interval of long ages.”

Vern Poythress, is a New Testament professor at Westminster (PA), he has a PhD in mathematics from Harvard, and a PhD in NT. He taught math before studying at Cambridge and now rights on a whole range of subjects including the sciences. In his Redeeming Science, published by Crossway (p. 114): “Genesis 1-3 furnishes important direction, precisely because it provides an important framework; it gives us the meaning for grasping the big picture. It puts the all-powerful God at the sovereign origin of all. It provides a substantial beginning for a doctrine of God, of nature, of man, of sin, and of the Sabbath. It gives a clear basis for the weekly Sabbath pattern. But besides the issue of the Sabbath, what else do we gain from thinking that God created the world in the space of 144 hours, instead of 24 hours, or one hour, or 48 hours, or 3 years–or a billion years? Not much, really. The exact amount of time makes no difference theologically.”

John Sailhammer, Old Testament scholar and former professor at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, from his out of print Genesis Unbound (p. 13-15): “… in Genesis 1:1 –”In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” Since the Hebrew word translated “beginning” refers to an indefinit period of time, we cannot say for certain when God created the world or how long he took to create it. This period could have spanned as much as several billion years…”

Francis Schaeffer, a famed apologist and old earth creationist, from his Genesis in Space and Time (p. 59): “What does day mean in the days of creation? The answer must be held with some openness. In Genesis 5:2 we read: “Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.” As it is clear that Adam and Even were not created simultaneously, day in Genesis 5:2 does not mean a period of twenty-four hours. In other places in the Old Testament the Hebrew word day refers to an era, just as it often does in English. See, for example, Isaiah 2:11,12 and 17 for such a usage. The simple fact is that day in Hebrew (just as in English) is used in three separate senses: to mean (1) twenty-four hours, (2) the period of light during the twenty-four hours, and (3) an indeterminate period of time. Therefore, we must leave open the exact length of time indicated by day in Genesis.”

R. C. Sproul and Robert Wolgemuth, in their book What’s In the Bible (p. 4-5) say this: “Thoughtful and convincing arguments among Bible scholars swirl around the exact amount of time God used in creation. Were the six ‘days’ of creation a form of poetry and symbolism, or were they literally twenty-four-hour days? I certainly encourage you to join me in the exploration of this issue. However, as I have done with my students over the years, I find that it is always dangerous to shout where God has whispered. Either way, the Bible is crystal-clear as to the ‘Who’ of creation, and ultimately that will have to be enough.”

Charles H. Spurgeon, Victorian Baptist minister in London, known as “prince of preachers.” This is from a sermon called “Election” from the New Park Street Pulpit 1 (p. 318): “Can any man tell me when the beginning was? Years ago we thought the beginning of this world was when Adam came upon it; but we have discovered that thousands of years before that God was preparing chaotic matter to make it a fit abode for man, putting races of creatures upon it, who might die and leave behind the marks of his handiwork and marvelous skill, before he tried his hand on man.”

Another quote from Spurgeon, from his sermon “The Power of the Holy Ghost.” “In the 2d verse of the first chapter of Genesis, we read, “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” We know not how remote the period of the creation of this globe may be—certainly many millions of years before the time of Adam. Our planet has passed through various stages of existence, and different kinds of creatures have lived on its surface, all of which have been fashioned by God. But before that era came, wherein man should be its principal tenant and monarch, the Creator gave up the world to confusion. He allowed the inward fires to burst up from beneath, and melt all the solid matter, so that all kinds of substances were commingled in one vast mass of disorder. ”

Justin Taylor, editor of the ESV Study Bible, VP of editorial at Crossway, and famous blogger: “I don’t believe that Moses was at all concerned about the length of time in which God created the world and prepared the garden. In fact, the church has not historically been overly concerned about such issues. But since it is a preoccupation of our scientific age to inquire into the duration of the creation account, responsible interpreters must eventually lay their cards on the table and reveal their position (even if they get accused of heresy in the process!).”

Miles Van Pelt, is professor of Old Testament and academic dean at Reformed Theological Seminary (Jackson), he is also the co-author of Basics of Biblical Hebrew, a standard text in bible colleges and seminaries (as well as his Basics of Biblical Aramaic). In an unpublished paper delivered for ETS in 2009, he gave a thoroughly exegetical defense of the framework interpretation, where he concluded: “[T]he days of Genesis 1 are not to be interpreted as solar, sequential days. Rather, they provide readers with a framework for understanding the work of God that has become the sabbatical pattern for the life of God’s people.” I have a copy of this if anyone wants it emailed.

Rowland S. Ward, an Australian Reformed minister who is very conservative says: “I would contend that scientific creationism in its most usual forms is not a consistent development from a truly Reformed understanding of Scripture.”

Benjamin B. Warfield, famous Reformed theologian and professor at Princeton Theological Seminary, from his Biblical and Theological Studies (p. 261): “The question of the antiquity of man is accordingly a purely scientific one, in which the theologian as such has no concern.”

Edward J. Young, former professor of Old Testament at Westminster Seminary and writer of the influential book on the doctrine of inspiration called Thy Word is Truth published by Banner of Truth. This quote comes from the article he wrote in the Encyclopedia of Christianity (vol. 3, p. 242): “But then there arises the question as to the length of the days. That is a question which is difficult to answer. Indications are not lacking that they may have been longer than the days we now know, but the Scripture itself does not speak as clearly as one might like.” This quote comes from Studies in Genesis One (p. 104): “If the word “day” is employed figuratively, i.e., to denote a period of time longer than twenty-four hours, so also may the terms “evening” and “morning,” inasmuch as they are component elements of the day, be employed figuratively. It goes without saying that an historical narrative may contain figurative elements. Their presence, however, can only be determined by means of exegesis.”